Lotsa House Repubs Not Happy With Trump Planned Tariffs

President Trump received a letter on Wednesday in which 107 House Republicans urged him to back off his threat to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all countries, regardless of origin.

The GOP lawmakers, led by House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady of Texas, encouraged Trump to take an approach that focused on countries responsible for creating the global steel glut, and not on every trading partner who exports steel or aluminum to the U.S. House Republicans singled out China in particular for creating trade imbalances.

“We support your resolve to address distortions caused by China’s unfair practices, and we are committed to acting with you and our trading partners on meaningful and effective action,” the lawmakers wrote to Trump. “But we urge you to reconsider the idea of broad tariffs to avoid unintended negative consequences to the U.S. economy and its workers.”

Finding myself agreeing with Deplorable Dude… But I’ll add, you negotiate from a position of strength, and then yield a little for the win. So he says a 25% tariff, and then settles for say 18%… The question is what else does he get for the 7% gimme?

Either way, we need to deal with China. Between the piece Pat Buchanan wrote the other day, and the stuff Drudge is running this evening on China’s paid influence over colleges & students… Fecal material meets rotating air circulation device…

US steelmakers supply about 70% of all steel made product bought in the US. With the additional 30% coming into the US, China doesn’t even make the top 10. Our biggest business partner concerning steel is Canada. Tariffs, (tax) makes products more expensive which leads to less demand, which lead to layoffs.

If China isn’t using back doors to dump steel in the U.S., then why are we getting steel and aluminum from countries who haven’t any foundries or smelters?

More importantly, why do these House R’s resist Secy Ross’s findings as regards domestic steel and aluminum production and its ties to national security? This is insane. These are not suggestions based solely (or even primarily) on jobs — although that is also important — but on our national security. If you look at the list of countries who would be singled out, as the congressional R’s are suggesting, the effect would be inadequate (see my first question, above). We may believe we are dealing in good faith with, say, Mexico or Canada, when in fact they are reselling Chinese or Indian steel.

looks like campaign donations/kickbacks from foreign companies are going to be decreased substantially. What else could explain how a virtual pauper can win a congressional seat and be a millionaire in a few years.